The Tenth Circuit recently held that an employee who failed to take adequate steps to protect confidential business information could not maintain claims against his former employer for trade secret misappropriation under...more
On September 23, 2025, in Park v. Shinhan Bank America, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed whistleblower retaliation claims brought by four former compliance officers of Shinhan Bank...more
On September 17, 2025, in Prkic v. Sezzle, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed whistleblower retaliation claims under both the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) and the Dodd-Frank Act (“Dodd-Frank”)...more
On September 4, 2025, the FTC announced an enforcement action and proposed settlement with Gateway Pet Memorial Services (the “Company”), a pet cremation company, over the Company’s overuse of post-employment non-competes...more
The Ninth Circuit recently held that the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) does not require plaintiffs to identify their allegedly misappropriate trade secrets with reasonable particularity at the outset of discovery—much...more
The Ninth Circuit recently held that the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) does not require plaintiffs to identify their allegedly misappropriate trade secrets with reasonable particularity at the outset of discovery—much...more
9/9/2025
/ Abuse of Discretion ,
Appellate Courts ,
California ,
Confidential Information ,
Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) ,
Disclosure Requirements ,
Discovery ,
Discovery Disputes ,
Misappropriation ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
Summary Judgment ,
Trade Secrets
A California state jury awarded Propel Fuels, Inc. $604.9 million in damages after finding Phillips 66 Company liable for trade secret misappropriation. Propel Fuels, Inc. v. Phillips 66 Co., Case No. 22CV007197 (Cal. Oct....more
8/15/2025
/ Acquisitions ,
Business Litigation ,
California ,
Confidential Information ,
Confidentiality Agreements ,
Damages ,
Due Diligence ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Jury Trial ,
Misappropriation ,
Non-Disclosure Agreement ,
Trade Secrets ,
Unfair Competition
A nearly decade-long legal battle in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently concluded with a significant jury verdict, underscoring the potentially severe consequences of trade secret theft...more
7/11/2025
/ Business Litigation ,
Confidential Information ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Corporate Misconduct ,
Damages ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Jury Awards ,
Jury Trial ,
Misappropriation ,
Non-Disclosure Agreement ,
Popular ,
Punitive Damages ,
Trade Secrets
In Jefferson v. Science Apps. Int’l Corp., et al.,[1] the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the plaintiff’s whistleblower retaliation claim brought under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”...more
On March 25, 2025, in Smith v. Coupang,[1] the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied Coupang, Inc.’s motion to dismiss its former employee’s SOX and state law whistleblower claims despite...more
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Jackson in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services, ruling that the “background circumstances” test—which applies a heighted...more
On April 22, 2025, the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a sales manager and his new employer on claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), the Oklahoma Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“OUTSA”), and...more
On April 9, 2025, Kansas Governor Laura Kelley signed into law Senate Bill No. 241 (the “Bill”), which amends the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act (the “Act”) to (a) create presumptions of enforceability for non-solicitation...more
5/2/2025
/ Contract Terms ,
Employee Rights ,
Employer Responsibilities ,
Employment Contract ,
Enforcement ,
New Legislation ,
Non-Compete Agreements ,
Non-Solicitation Agreements ,
Regulatory Requirements ,
Restrictive Covenants ,
State Labor Laws
On March 27, 2025, in Stimlabs LLC v. Griffiths, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ordered a former executive, Sarah Griffiths, to face claims related to her alleged theft of Stimlab’s trade secrets...more
On March 20, 2025, in Zornoza v. Terraform Global Inc. et al, No. 818-cv-02523 (D. Md. Apr. 4, 2025), a former executive of two SunEdison subsidiaries secured a $34.5 million settlement over his SOX whistleblower retaliation...more
On April 4, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama’s ruling dismissing Alabama Aircraft Industries’ (“AAI”) trade secret misappropriation claim against Boeing, thereby...more
On March 24, 2025, Virginia Governor Glenn Younkin signed into law S.B. 1218, which amended Virginia’s non-compete law to expand the definition of “low-wage employees” with whom employers may not enter into non-competition...more
4/8/2025
/ Corporate Counsel ,
Employee Rights ,
Employees ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employer Responsibilities ,
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ,
New Legislation ,
New Regulations ,
Non-Compete Agreements ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour
Wyoming just banned most non-compete agreements (Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108): starting July 1, 2025, most agreements that restrict workers from working in competitive jobs will be void, absent some exceptions for:
High-Level...more
4/3/2025
/ Contract Terms ,
Employee Rights ,
Employee Training ,
Employees ,
Employment Contract ,
New Legislation ,
New Rules ,
Non-Compete Agreements ,
Physicians ,
Restrictive Covenants ,
State Labor Laws ,
Trade Secrets
On March 13, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a trade secret misappropriation claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), finding that the employer failed to plead it had...more
On March 19, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the U.S. Department of Justice issued two technical assistance documents discussing how the agencies view and define Diversity, Equity and...more
3/26/2025
/ Compensation ,
Department of Justice (DOJ) ,
Diversity and Inclusion Standards (D&I) ,
Employee Benefits ,
Employee Training ,
Employment Discrimination ,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ,
Executive Orders ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Interviews ,
Job Applicants ,
Title VII ,
Trump Administration
As we previously reported, on March 3, 2025, the Maryland District Court denied Defendants’ motion to stay the preliminary injunction in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump, preventing the...more
On February 26, 2025, the United States Supreme Court entertained oral argument in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case that centered on whether a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must meet a higher...more
On February 20, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed a trade secret misappropriation claim for failing to identify explicit language establishing an expectation of privacy to the...more
On February 21, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction pausing enforcement of several provisions of President Trump’s DEI-related executive orders on Ending Radical and...more
On February 21, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction pausing enforcement of several provisions of President Trump’s DEI-related executive orders on Ending Radical and...more
2/25/2025
/ Constitutional Challenges ,
Diversity and Inclusion Standards (D&I) ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Executive Orders ,
False Claims Act (FCA) ,
Federal Contractors ,
Fifth Amendment ,
First Amendment ,
Government Agencies ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Separation of Powers